Ok I will bite...We came from the Big Bang (or something similar to it) and the resulting defined forces (electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction (also known as "strong" and "weak nuclear force") and gravitation) of the universe.

The Ã¢â‚¬Å“Big BangÃ¢â‚¬Â is a tag hung on the beginning of the universe based upon the fact that we know from evidences that the universe had a beginning. We have no empirical evidence of any bang, therefore attempting to use the tag Ã¢â‚¬Å“Big BangÃ¢â‚¬Â as a foundation for atheism is an equivocation with #Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s 3, 4, 5 and 6. And therefore, ultimately #1.

And your next question of course will be "What happened before the big bang?" (or what caused it)

No, my next question is Ã¢â‚¬Å“why donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you think seriously on the two simple questions I askedÃ¢â‚¬Â? The above is an equivocation with #Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s 2, 4, 5 and 6. And therefore, ultimately #1.

You can't measure Atheism by the same yardstick you use on <slander edited>. There is no <slander edited> for atheism, there is no dogma that atheism follows by.

The above question is has absolutely nothing to do with the foundation of atheism, and is therefore an equivocation with #Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s 2, 4, 5 and 6. And therefore, ultimately #1.

Even if every human on the planet suddenly became atheist there would be no atheist church.

Seeing that the world-wide atheist population is so miniscule, the above is total equivocation.

All I can tell you is what I believe as a person to be true to me. Personally I don't need to know where I was before I was born (did not exist) or where I will be after I die (I will cease to exist).

Then all you had to do was answer Ã¢â‚¬Å“I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t knowÃ¢â‚¬Â (#3), instead of giving a Ã¢â‚¬Å“faith statementÃ¢â‚¬Â for which you have no evidence.

Also since this is evolution board, how are these question even valid?

Yes, absolutely validÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Because, even if evolution were true, it would still need origins (i.e. foundation)! Therefore, any statements that donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t deal with those foundations are themselves based on presuppositions and faith. And, if defended becomes a religion. Also the above question is has absolutely nothing to do with the foundation of atheism, and is therefore an equivocation with #Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s 2, 4, 5 and 6. And therefore, ultimately #1.

Wouldn't it be more valid to ask what an evolutionist and not an atheist thinks about these things?

Nope, the faith statements of evolutionists, no matter what tag they hang on themselves, are valid to the discussion in this forum. The above question is has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, and is therefore an equivocation with #Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s 2, 5 and 6. And therefore, ultimately #1.

ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fine autobiographical dialogue martimus, and I appreciate it, because I believe we can have meaningful philosophical discussions on such. I really mean this, because I enjoy conversations on practical logic and philosophy greatly. Maybe a separate thread should be set up for such. So, I am not attempting to detract from your above post when I say that it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t address the OP. The Op isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t asking for mere opinion, beliefs and faith, but provable data on atheistic origins! Again; we know for a fact, using the empirical scientific method, that we have (and have had) existence. This existence is substantive, and yet there are metaphysical and ethereal aspects to our existence that we use to drive the rational of said existence (Thoughts, the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Laws of LogicÃ¢â‚¬Â, altruistic Love, the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Laws of MathematicsÃ¢â‚¬Â etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ to name a few). Because we are here, we know we came from somewhere because there is absolutely no evidence of something coming from nothing.Therefore; Where did we come from (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?In order for the atheist to have foundation, the atheists have to answer these questions. Otherwise they are basing their entire worldview on faith. To say the atheist doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need an answer, or the atheist has nothing to say whatsoever on the subject of origins, further exacerbates their situation.

The support for the atheistic worldview is the lack of evidence that atheists see for god or gods.

And the big bang (which I assume is what you're speaking of when you say "something coming from nothing", although the big bang isn't related to atheism) doesn't propose that something came from nothing -- what the big bang describes is what happens to a universe once you've already got a universe; it's not a description of getting a universe -- see what I mean?

Incidentally, you can get something from nothing depending on how you choose to define "something" and "nothing".

The Ã¢â‚¬Å“Big BangÃ¢â‚¬Â is a tag hung on the beginning of the universe based upon the fact that we know from evidences that the universe had a beginning. We have no empirical evidence of any bang, therefore attempting to use the tag Ã¢â‚¬Å“Big BangÃ¢â‚¬Â as a foundation for atheism is an equivocation with #Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s 3, 4, 5 and 6. And therefore, ultimately #1.

Of course we don't have empirical evidence of any bang -- because the big bang doesn't really describe a bang at all (the term "big bang" was coined as dismissive terminology by Fred Hoyle, who didn't believe in the theory). But we do have evidence of the expansion of space that would have resulted in a singularity a finite time ago, as predicted by general relativity, a testable [and, moreover, tested] theory. And yeah, relativity is based on a handful of assumptions, but consider this -- if the assumptions are wrong, then why should the various predictions of the theory be right [predictions, that is, that are unique to this theory and aren't explained well by any other known scientific theory]?

The support for the atheistic worldview is the lack of evidence that atheists see for god or gods.

That neither answers the OP questions, nor is it cogent reasoning. Just because atheists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t accept the lines of evidence for God, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t follow that there are no evidences for God. Therefore it (your response) in no way provides evidence for atheistic foundations.

And the big bang (which I assume is what you're speaking of when you say "something coming from nothing", although the big bang isn't related to atheism) doesn't propose that something came from nothing -- what the big bang describes is what happens to a universe once you've already got a universe; it's not a description of getting a universe -- see what I mean?

I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mention the Ã¢â‚¬Å“big bangÃ¢â‚¬Â, but thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fine because it still doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t provide evidence for atheistic foundations.

Incidentally, you can get something from nothing depending on how you choose to define "something" and "nothing".

Provide empirical evidence for any of this (or all of this) around us coming from nothing, or quit equivocating (see OP rules).

Of course we don't have empirical evidence of any bang -- because the big bang doesn't really describe a bang at all (the term "big bang" was coined as dismissive terminology by Fred Hoyle, who didn't believe in the theory).

Still, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t provide evidence for atheistic foundations.

But we do have evidence of the expansion of space that would have resulted in a singularity a finite time ago, as predicted by general relativity, a testable [and, moreover, tested] theory.

Still, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t provide evidence for atheistic foundations.

And yeah, relativity is based on a handful of assumptions, but consider this -- if the assumptions are wrong, then why should the various predictions of the theory be right [predictions, that is, that are unique to this theory and aren't explained well by any other known scientific theory]?

Still, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t provide evidence for atheistic foundations.

You are ranging far afield from the OP, and you still havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t said anything!

That neither answers the OP questions, nor is it cogent reasoning. Just because atheists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t accept the lines of evidence for God, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t follow that there are no evidences for God. Therefore it (your response) in no way provides evidence for atheistic foundations.

Foundation:1. The foundation of something such as a belief or way of life is the things on which it is based.Atheism is based on the belief that there's no good evidence for god [or, for certain people, that there's evidence of no god rather than lack of belief for some god, but personally I don't buy that one]. It's as simple as that. Is it possible that, somewhere out there, someone's come up with an amazing piece of evidence for god that nobody can refute? Sure. It's possible, and I don't entirely reject that possibility. But nothing that I [or other atheists] have heard do we find to provide adequate evidence for the supernatural, which is what makes us atheists [and so is consequently the foundation for atheism].

Provide empirical evidence for any of this (or all of this) around us coming from nothing, or quit equivocating (see OP rules).

I didn't say that we've come from nothing. I only said that it's incorrect to say that something can't come from nothing [again, taking care to how to define 'something' and 'nothing', which scientifically aren't particularly well-defined]. I know you're going to pull out the equivocation card again, but just to finish up my thought anyways: quantum mechanics has shown that, broadly speaking nature can create information where there was none before [by observation], or, put another way, nature can achieve determinacy from indeterminacy [observation collapses the probabilistic wave function into a determinate state], which is in a certain sense something from nothing. Alternatively, vacuum particles pop in and out of existence in the quantum void, which is more or less as close to nothingness as you can get these days -- but whether you want to define it as truly "nothing" is up to you. Regardless of whether or not you agree with those specific examples, my point is that "you can't get something from nothing" isn't as self-evident as it might seem; common sense doesn't always work so easily in modern physics.

2- What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

EVERYTHING you've said thus far (in all of your posts) have not touched either question.

The thing is, you are going to deny anything anyone writes on here with a "Still, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t provide evidence for atheistic foundations" or "That's equivocation". Several atheists have answered the questions to how they believe with what is probably their honest opinions. If you don't want to hear their opinions than why even start the thread? If you don't believe the evidence, then just say "I don't believe it" instead of writing equivocation a dozen times followed by there is no evidence for it. Really you are doing the equivalent of shoving your fingers in your ears and saying "La La La, Equivocation!" Which really makes me want to take back what I said about no creationists throwing tantrums here.

Yeah I know you are a mod and are going to censor what you don't like. Really proves my own personal theory that most Christians aren't Christlike. Oh well, getting the ban hammer on Post #3 (oops), maybe it will be a record.

The thing is, you are going to deny anything anyone writes on here with a "Still, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t provide evidence for atheistic foundations" or "That's equivocation".

What were the questions in the OP?

Several atheists have answered the questions to how they believe with what is probably their honest opinions.

What did the questions in the OP ask for, opinion and equivocation or evidence?

If you don't want to hear their opinions than why even start the thread?

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mind hearing your opinion on a subject, and if you want to open a thread to express your unscientific opinion (i.e. bereft of empiricism), by all means, do so. But the OP didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t ask for mere unsupported opinion did itÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

If you don't believe the evidence, then just say "I don't believe it" instead of writing equivocation a dozen times followed by there is no evidence for it.

If you can provide any evidence to the OP, then by all means, do so (but absolutely none of your posts have done so). You cannot even reconcile your last two sentences. In one you attempt to promulgate an opinion as an evidence, and in the other you say I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t accept opinion as evidence. You attempt to reconcile the two are logically and rationally fallacious at best.

Really you are doing the equivalent of shoving your fingers in your ears and saying "La La La, Equivocation!" Which really makes me want to take back what I said about no creationists throwing tantrums here.

So, now, since you have absolutely no cogent answers to the OP, you find baseless and inane troll postings as your only alternative. DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you think you time would be better served in attempting to answer the OP?

Yeah I know you are a mod and are going to censor what you don't like. Really proves my own personal theory that most Christians aren't Christlike. Oh well, getting the ban hammer on Post #3 (oops), maybe it will be a record.

People only get banned by their own actions. Maybe a perusal of the forum rules would be a good place to get a handle on the reasons for that.

I already said that in and of itself, atheism as a system of beliefs doesn't answer the origins question.

Which I acknowledged martimus. But it is merely an opinion with no substantiation, and in no way answers the questions of the OP. Nor does it, in any real way lend credence to atheistic origins.

Hence; where did we come from, and what is our meaning for being here, then, are two questions that the atheist worldview cannot answer with evidentiary substantiation. And these questions cannot even be broached meaningfully without having answer to the atheistic foundations in support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins question.

Verbatim:Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)?What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

What did the questions in the OP ask for, opinion and equivocation or evidence?

You are right, you did mention you wanted evidence in the original. My apologies.

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mind hearing your opinion on a subject, and if you want to open a thread to express your unscientific opinion (i.e. bereft of empiricism), by all means, do so. But the OP didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t ask for mere unsupported opinion did itÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

My question is how scientific can you really be in a forum such as this? Do you want this to be a Google/Copy-Paste arena where we do nothing but cite evidence that others have found? Or would you like at least some responses in our own words and original thoughts about the questions you have asked? I daresay that none of the atheists here do any real scientific work (which means observe, hypothesize or infer, test, and repeat) regarding the origins of the universe. Therefore, the best you are going to get out of us is either opinion or a copy-paste of what someone else has found.

If you can provide any evidence to the OP, then by all means, do so (but absolutely none of your posts have done so). You cannot even reconcile your last two sentences. In one you attempt to promulgate an opinion as an evidence, and in the other you say I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t accept opinion as evidence. You attempt to reconcile the two are logically and rationally fallacious at best.

Like I said above, the best I am going to be able present to you as evidence for my belief is going to be opinion. Do I expect you to accept it as evidence? I would say don't except it at all, I would say dig deeper and discover more for yourself. That's entirely up to you what you do with it. I am neither a cosmologist nor a physicist by profession or hobby. I am however an atheist and was attempting to answer your question to atheists as an atheist.

Q. From where did we come (what are our Origins)?A. BBT Evidence: http://www.talkorigi...g.html#evidenceIn my own words however, the ones I first learned about where the presence of background radiation and the evidence of an expanding universe. Combine that with my knowledge and other beliefs and that makes me a believer in it. The rest can be found in the link. Is it a cop-out? I guess it could be seen as that, but I would have to say that my belief in my origins have nothing to do with my atheistic beliefs. Before I became an atheist my absolute belief was that everything came from God. Now that I no longer believe in that God I believe BBT is the beginning (of this universe). Yet even if the BBT were disproved tomorrow it would not stop me being an atheist. I did not become an atheist because I started believing in the BBT (although it did help somewhat). Christians have a concrete idea of what their origins are. The same is not true for atheists. Falcone might see differently in terms of origins, but that doesn't make us not atheists because we have differing views on the subject. Xianity cannot do this (to some extent yes). Yes there are guidelines that still remain that cannot be crossed by either, but atheism has a much wider range than Xianity does.

Q. What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?A. VariesEvidence: Not applicableMy atheistic worldview (but does not apply to all atheists) is that there is no god or gods that created the universe, that watch over and judge us and that have a plan to end the world at some point in the future. I think our morals come from within us and from the society we live in. Scott stated that these morals all came from the bible. I believe the bible was written by people, so therefore they still came from people. He might believe the bible was written by his god. My retort that is this, society has deemed it immoral to kill witches (and illegal). Yet the bible states that thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Contrast this to Christianity and you have got something else entirely. Similar to comparing a cooking show to a football game (yes the analogy breaks down like all analogies eventually do). A football game is structured, has definite rules, has two sides, has a definite way to quantify victory, while plays vary they are still somewhat fixed, and has a fixed start & end time (super bowl). A cooking show on the other hand is willy nilly in comparison. You can watch a Giants Vs. Chiefs game and they are doing the same thing as the 49's Vs. the Broncos. While Elton Brown is trying to teach you about the benefits of cranberries, Rachael Ray is showing you how to make food fast. The recipes almost always vary in ingredients and preparation style. Also it's a one side deal for the most part (yeah there is Iron Chef and the like, but I am talking more old school). At the end of the game one side is a loser (hell) and the other side is the winner (heaven). At the end of 30 minute meals you only have what she made, maybe someone can use it later, maybe not.

As others have stated before and I will reiterate, atheism does not deal with origins. Atheism does not tell us where we began the same way that Xianity does. There is no bible of atheism that says "In the beginning the BB happened".

Therefore, I put the evidence for this as Not Applicapable because there are none that apply. Imagine asking me for evidence of my disbelief in UFO's? I would tell you I don't believe in UFO's because the evidence is just not compelling enough. You could show me pictures and give me all sorts of eyewitness accounts, but I just don't believe it for whatever reason. Does that mean I discount the idea that there could be any forms of extraterrestrial life on other planets? Of course not, but I do not believe that they have visited us yet. The same goes for my atheistic beliefs. Do I discount that there could be a god somewhere (or even a super being or beings of some kind)? Of course not, but I do not think that religion gives me enough evidence to believe in any of the gods presented.

Another way to think about it, is that I am atheistic towards the Christian god, the same way you are atheistic towards the Muslim god (and as a result the religion). You however fall back on your Christian beliefs as your foundation, I do not. To clarify I am also atheistic against any god, not just the Christian god.

You might still say that I am equivocating, but I am presenting my atheistic beliefs the way I believe. They will not be the same as some other atheist such as Falcone. If they are, well that is a bonus and more power to us. If not, that doesn't mean we aren't atheists. Suppose he believes aliens flew by our planet one day, pretended to be gods for a few millennia (thus starting many religions) and then went on their merry way when they got bored. It doesn't conflict with my idea that all religions are man made. Our atheistic beliefs still point to the non-existence of the any god.

Which I acknowledged martimus. But it is merely an opinion with no substantiation, and in no way answers the questions of the OP. Nor does it, in any real way lend credence to atheistic origins.

Hence; where did we come from, and what is our meaning for being here, then, are two questions that the atheist worldview cannot answer with evidentiary substantiation. And these questions cannot even be broached meaningfully without having answer to the atheistic foundations in support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins question.

Atheists can answer these questions, but the answers aren't inherently part of the atheistic worldview. It's up for each atheist to decide for themselves -- like I said before, an atheist could just as well believe in intelligent design (by a non-supernatural hand) as abiogenesis, although there happens to be preciously few non-religious folk who buy into ID. In and of itself atheism as a system of beliefs doesn't answer these questions -- and if you want you can consider that a failing of atheism, although I don't -- but that doesn't stop an atheist from being able to answer those questions.

Atheism isn't a "things work this way" type of belief -- it's only "well, things don't work this one way" -- which doesn't answer how things do work, although it doesn't stop an atheist from answering how things work. His explanation there just wouldn't be a part of the fundamentals of atheism.

Atheists can answer these questions, but the answers aren't inherently part of the atheistic worldview.

If that were the case, then the answer would here, or forthcoming. But, seeing that that has not, isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t currently, nor will be in the foreseeable future, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m forced to say that you are incorrect on that point. And, the answers are inherently part of everyoneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s worldview.

It's up for each atheist to decide for themselves -- like I said before, an atheist could just as well believe in intelligent design (by a non-supernatural hand) as abiogenesis, although there happens to be preciously few non-religious folk who buy into ID. In and of itself atheism as a system of beliefs doesn't answer these questions -- and if you want you can consider that a failing of atheism, although I don't -- but that doesn't stop an atheist from being able to answer those questions.

It matters not what one believes (materialistically) if they have no empirical evidence to back it up, regardless of their faith in ID or evolution. One would think that those who claim to believe in science and empiricism, would do all they could to gain knowledge, not run from it by making statements like:

Atheism isn't a "things work this way" type of belief -- it's only "well, things don't work this one way" -- which doesn't answer how things do work, although it doesn't stop an atheist from answering how things work. His explanation there just wouldn't be a part of the fundamentals of atheism.

If that were the case, then the answer would here, or forthcoming. But, seeing that that has not, isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t currently, nor will be in the foreseeable future, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m forced to say that you are incorrect on that point. And, the answers are inherently part of everyoneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s worldview.

But there isn't one single answer that inherently applies to all atheists. I can tell you my answer, which happens to be the answer of an atheist, namely myself. But it's not the answer of atheism -- which is an important distinction to make.

It matters not what one believes (materialistically) if they have no empirical evidence to back it up, regardless of their faith in ID or evolution. One would think that those who claim to believe in science and empiricism, would do all they could to gain knowledge, not run from it by making statements like:

The scientist looks for answers, not excuses.

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying that atheists just say one way that nature is not and leave it at that. But that IS all that the fundamental ideas of atheism - in and of itself - say. Most all atheists, myself included, dig further into those questions -- in a process that isn't related to our atheism.

But there isn't one single answer that inherently applies to all atheists.

Actually, there is, although it does lead to others. Al l atheists say they believe there is no God. They then say there is nothing outside the materialistic. Nothing before we were born, and nothing after we die. But they base this totally on faith, without reason, logic or scientific evidences. Even the probabilities are stacked against them. Yet they dogmatically defend these assertions.

I can tell you my answer, which happens to be the answer of an atheist, namely myself. But it's not the answer of atheism -- which is an important distinction to make.

I appreciate your candor martimus. And as a former hedonistic atheist I would have agreed with you at one time.

I think you've misunderstood me.

No, I really donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think I have. But I will listen to reason. But mostly, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d like to hear something close to addressing the OP.

I'm not saying that atheists just say one way that nature is not and leave it at that. But that IS all that the fundamental ideas of atheism - in and of itself - say. Most all atheists, myself included, dig further into those questions -- in a process that isn't related to our atheism.

Again, I believe you are still over looking the fact that Ã¢â‚¬Å“from nothing, nothing comesÃ¢â‚¬Â. And, at the foundation of atheism seems to loom Ã¢â‚¬Å“nothingÃ¢â‚¬Â. And I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean that in an obstinate and malicious manner. It is more a statement of factual observation.

Verbatim:Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)?What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?You are right, you did mention you wanted evidence in the original. My apologies.My question is how scientific can you really be in a forum such as this? Do you want this to be a Google/Copy-Paste arena where we do nothing but cite evidence that others have found? Or would you like at least some responses in our own words and original thoughts about the questions you have asked? I daresay that none of the atheists here do any real scientific work (which means observe, hypothesize or infer, test, and repeat) regarding the origins of the universe. Therefore, the best you are going to get out of us is either opinion or a copy-paste of what someone else has found.Like I said above, the best I am going to be able present to you as evidence for my belief is going to be opinion. Do I expect you to accept it as evidence? I would say don't except it at all, I would say dig deeper and discover more for yourself. That's entirely up to you what you do with it. I am neither a cosmologist nor a physicist by profession or hobby. I am however an atheist and was attempting to answer your question to atheists as an atheist.

Q. From where did we come (what are our Origins)?A. BBT Evidence: http://www.talkorigi...g.html#evidenceIn my own words however, the ones I first learned about where the presence of background radiation and the evidence of an expanding universe. Combine that with my knowledge and other beliefs and that makes me a believer in it. The rest can be found in the link. Is it a cop-out? I guess it could be seen as that, but I would have to say that my belief in my origins have nothing to do with my atheistic beliefs. Before I became an atheist my absolute belief was that everything came from God. Now that I no longer believe in that God I believe BBT is the beginning (of this universe). Yet even if the BBT were disproved tomorrow it would not stop me being an atheist. I did not become an atheist because I started believing in the BBT (although it did help somewhat). Christians have a concrete idea of what their origins are. The same is not true for atheists. Falcone might see differently in terms of origins, but that doesn't make us not atheists because we have differing views on the subject. Xianity cannot do this (to some extent yes). Yes there are guidelines that still remain that cannot be crossed by either, but atheism has a much wider range than Xianity does.

Q. What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?A. VariesEvidence: Not applicableMy atheistic worldview (but does not apply to all atheists) is that there is no god or gods that created the universe, that watch over and judge us and that have a plan to end the world at some point in the future. I think our morals come from within us and from the society we live in. Scott stated that these morals all came from the bible. I believe the bible was written by people, so therefore they still came from people. He might believe the bible was written by his god. My retort that is this, society has deemed it immoral to kill witches (and illegal). Yet the bible states that thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Contrast this to Christianity and you have got something else entirely. Similar to comparing a cooking show to a football game (yes the analogy breaks down like all analogies eventually do). A football game is structured, has definite rules, has two sides, has a definite way to quantify victory, while plays vary they are still somewhat fixed, and has a fixed start & end time (super bowl). A cooking show on the other hand is willy nilly in comparison. You can watch a Giants Vs. Chiefs game and they are doing the same thing as the 49's Vs. the Broncos. While Elton Brown is trying to teach you about the benefits of cranberries, Rachael Ray is showing you how to make food fast. The recipes almost always vary in ingredients and preparation style. Also it's a one side deal for the most part (yeah there is Iron Chef and the like, but I am talking more old school). At the end of the game one side is a loser (hell) and the other side is the winner (heaven). At the end of 30 minute meals you only have what she made, maybe someone can use it later, maybe not.

As others have stated before and I will reiterate, atheism does not deal with origins. Atheism does not tell us where we began the same way that Xianity does. There is no bible of atheism that says "In the beginning the BB happened".

Therefore, I put the evidence for this as Not Applicapable because there are none that apply. Imagine asking me for evidence of my disbelief in UFO's? I would tell you I don't believe in UFO's because the evidence is just not compelling enough. You could show me pictures and give me all sorts of eyewitness accounts, but I just don't believe it for whatever reason. Does that mean I discount the idea that there could be any forms of extraterrestrial life on other planets? Of course not, but I do not believe that they have visited us yet. The same goes for my atheistic beliefs. Do I discount that there could be a god somewhere (or even a super being or beings of some kind)? Of course not, but I do not think that religion gives me enough evidence to believe in any of the gods presented.

Another way to think about it, is that I am atheistic towards the Christian god, the same way you are atheistic towards the Muslim god (and as a result the religion). You however fall back on your Christian beliefs as your foundation, I do not. To clarify I am also atheistic against any god, not just the Christian god.

You might still say that I am equivocating, but I am presenting my atheistic beliefs the way I believe. They will not be the same as some other atheist such as Falcone. If they are, well that is a bonus and more power to us. If not, that doesn't mean we aren't atheists. Suppose he believes aliens flew by our planet one day, pretended to be gods for a few millennia (thus starting many religions) and then went on their merry way when they got bored. It doesn't conflict with my idea that all religions are man made. Our atheistic beliefs still point to the non-existence of the any god.

Hello menes,

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d like to take more time to read your post, it looks (at first blush) pretty interesting. But, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be gone for a time (I think I mentioned this earlier), so IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll have to get back with you on this early next week if you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mind.

I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t want you to think I was ignoring or skirting your post.

I thought I would give my opinions on the subject here. I'll try and be brief (didn't work out too well), especially since I'm not a true atheist.

SOÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. If, according to the atheist, we go to nothing when we die; from where did we come, to get here?

Well that's a million dollar question. Before the big bang became a respected theory within the scientific community, I don't know if there even was a standard response (curse my young age). But I think that no matter what the answer is, the atheist will always look to nature to try and understand where we came from. And this will be achieved through utilizing the scientific method.

Now I believe the atheist response is very similar to the theist (one that goes with the scientific community) response, with one exception; that God didn't start the big bang, but some natural, unknown process(es) that started it all. There are several hypotheses with how the big bang started. Ultimately it is an unknown and may always be so. Perhaps many take solace from these hypotheses, one that jumps out at me is from the video on this forum from the 'universe from nothing' thread if you can remember that. In that video some astronomer or physicist talks about how the universe is flat and a flat universe can be created out of nothing due to quantum fluctuations. In the end, it may always be an unknown to what caused the big bang while theists will readily say that it was God.

If you want to discuss the merits of the big bang beyond an abstract state perhaps a new thread is in order. To be brief the main evidence is the cosmic background radiation, the homology of the universe, and redshift with Hubble's equation. There are more subtle evidences, like the distribution of population I and II stars within certain types of galaxies and quasars, but this could be the result of something other than the big bang, but it does co-inside with the big bang theory.

Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)?

To continue the story... Taking the same principles as before, using the methodology of the scientific method to understand the natural universe, scientists can do this for the origin of life as well as the origin of the universe. From the big bang galaxies formed with only stars, no planets. Our Sun is a second or third generation star. How this happened is best explained through the condensation theory, similar to it's precursor the solar nebular hypothesis. From that we have the Earth, and from there abiogenesis and then evolution until life evolved to form us on one of the branches on the evolution tree of life.

Again, if you want to discuss these various scientific theories in any detail I suggest a new thread, as it could get cluttered quite fast. For the basic evidence of abiogenesis there is the synthesis of simple cell membranes and trapping amino acids (which form naturally, and from what we know of pre-biotic Earth there were plenty) inside the cell membrane as well as synthesizing several RNA/DNA nucleotides in the lab. There are problems and questions in this field to be sure, but this branch is in its infancy and scientists are learning more and getting closer all the time.

For the basic evidence of evolution there is the fossil record, we have yet to find a confirmed, out of place fossil, like bunnies in the Cambrian. The smooth gradient of fossils showing gradual change. There is also DNA evidence, which many contend that even without the fossil record the DNA evidence is enough to prove evolution. Genetics show the similarities and differences within species and see how closely related two or more species are. Life started out in the water, eventually moved onto land with creatures like Tiktaalik, then reptiles, then mammals, and eventually us. Some human evolution evidence is skeletal remains of Australopithecus, H. habilis, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis, archaic H. sapiens, modern H. sapien.

What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

At the heart of atheism is really a disbelief in a God(s). It is neither a philosophy nor a theology. I would say the strongest evidence for atheism comes from the fact we have never objectively verified anything beyond the natural. And psychology has shown us that eye-witness accounts are unreliable as well as our own memory. Really, atheism relies on the absence of positive evidence for a God.

In philosophy perhaps the closest thing to atheism is philosophical naturalism, which has been discussed in a previous thread. For any who might not know, philosophical naturalism is essentially a world view in that there is nothing beyond the natural, no gods, goddess, magic, or any supernatural entities or phenomena. Again, the evidence for this is the lack of objective verifiable evidence of the supernatural.